It's been a bad week for me, as far as Jewish leaders are concerned.
Well, to be honest it's been going on for a while. Years, i suppose, but certainly a good few months. In the winter, there was the Chaim Halperin scandal. A 'chashuva' (important and well respected) dayan (Rabbinical judge), with a synagogue, a school, and a position on the Beis Din, who sexually abused naive women. It turns out a lot of people knew about it, but no one said anything - some were scared, and some thought it was ok because he's so holy.
Overlapping with that was the Weberman trial in New York, when the whole world learned that a man whom everyone already knew violated the laws of yichud (isolation with members of the opposite sex, intended to prevent opportunities for sexual activity) and forced vulnerable girls to visit him for private counselling, also sexually abused them in the most degrading way. AND then used his 'chashuva' status to blackmail and threaten them into staying quiet, to convince all around him that they were mentally unstable, non-'frum' individuals, and was supported in all of this by the top rabbis of his chassidus. Who, like with Halperin, continued to stand by him as the evidence piled up against him.
Both of these men gave in to their evil inclination for sexual activity, again and again, and abused their positions of authority and trust to do so. And others around them permitted it, again and again, whether out of fear, or denial, or a desire to keep their own power as well I do not know and don't really want to go into now.
Then a few weeks ago, it was revealed that Rabbi Dr. Michael Broyde had used pseudonyms to praise his own work, increased his importance by writing positive reviews under an assumed name, and, it now seems, made up important halachic source material in order to bolster his arguments. I have again heard that 'everyone' knew he did this and accepted it.
Last week, I heard that 'rabbi' Berland (I put the word 'rabbi' in inverted commas, because it is a title that connotes respect and he does not deserve any) has fled to Morocco after he was found naked with a girl (also naked) on whom he was performing a 'purification ritual'. Not surprisingly, it wasn't the first such 'ritual' he'd performed. One of his biggest students, Rabbi Shalom Arush, the famous author of 'Garden of Emuna' and many other inspirational books, has allegedly stated that Berland is a kadosh (holy man) and that anyone who believes the 'claims' against him has no part in the garden of Eden. See above, Halperin and Weberman, but add in 'cult of personality'.
Alongside this, last week also brought a 'firestorm' around MK R' Dov Lipman. I don;t know exactly what he said in the name of R' Yaakov Weinberg zt"l, the former Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisrael, but it brought down the wrath of R' Aron Feldman - the current Rosh Yeshiva - upon him, in a letter which said that Dov Lipman does not at all represent the views of Ner Yisrael. I read Rabbi Slifkin's response to this, in which he wrote that when he was weathering his own controversy about Science and Torah, R' Feldman - who had been his rabbi - was very supportive of him for the first 6 months or so, flying in to talk with gedolim (Torah world leaders) to try to convince them to rescind the ban they had placed on R' Slifkin. But that then, R' Feldman changed his position dramatically and published a letter that fully supported the ban.
A couple of years ago, I heard from my own Rabbi whom I do trust and respect that, after R' Feldman published his recent book ('Eye of the storm', I think it is called), he was asked why he included articles on so many 'burning issues' but did not address the issue of poverty in the charedi world at all. R' Feldman's response was that if he did write about that, no one would then listen to him even about other matters.
In my mind, I have been putting all of these together. I have come to the conclusion that Rav Feldman is a weak-willed coward and is not a leader. I still accept that he is a talmid chacham (Torah scholar) and extremely knowledgeable, but that does not make him someone I respect. It is time that we allowed people to be 'only' a rabbi, 'only' a halachist, 'only' a maggid shiur (teacher), even 'only' a Rosh Yeshivah, because they do not have the backbone to stand up for what is right.
I have realised that i should have followed my instincts about Shalom Arush's sect long ago. I had bought a couple of his books and begun reading them, but never got very far. I have read various of Lazer Brody's Torah articles and found huge holes in them. I have been able to demolish them in terms of Torah, and what do I know of Torah? I pushed these things to the back of my mind before now, on the basis that it is just me, it will mean something to others, and fine. But now I realise that there is something rotten in the whole shuvu banim structure. It stems from Berland. and it can be smelt in even Shalom Arush's Torah guidance, and even in Lazer Brody's inspirational writings. When the foundations are rotten, the whole edifice is unstable, but you can;t tell that from looking at the outside.
This is real chillul Hashem (betrayal of God's name). A rabbi is a representative of God (like it or not). When a respected, knowledgeable, 'frum' rabbi betrays the trust of those who had followed him, he destroys the image of God which he represented in their eyes. When other representatives of God support that man, they make the betrayal exponentially deeper. And you may point out to me that Broyde and Feldman have not abused anybody and I shouldn't lump them in the same boat with sex abusers. And you are right, it is of course not the same. But what is the same is the betrayal by a would-be, once-was leader. At least in my eyes.
Has this rocked my faith in God? Not at all. I know that this is not from Him. But it has rocked my faith in man. I shall try to trust my instincts more, not to be impressed by someone whose torah i have never probed, or to ignore my qualms when i do pick holes in someone's teachings. I used to feel that it was wrong of me to probe and question and argue with rabbonim/s divrei torah. After all, I'm only a woman, I haven;t spent as long in yeshiva or learned as much Torah as they have, who am I to question them? But now I think that perhaps I know more than I think I do.
Most of all I wonder - what is the higher meaning behind all of this? i jolly well hope that this is one of those final unravellings before Moshiach arrives, because when i think about what our Sages wrote about how the time immediately preceding Moshiach;s arrival would be so terrible that they said 'let him come, but let me not see it', i wonder how things can get much worse.
Monday, 20 May 2013
Saturday, 11 May 2013
Only A Rosh Yeshiva
My friend Rifki asked me, what do i mean by 'only' a Rosh Yeshiva? Well, it's fairly straightforward.
In the business world, let's say in a large finance company, there are different levels of hierarchy. There are the entry-level workers who sell stocks and shares or watch the stock market or whatever they do (I really haven't a clue).There are their supervisors, who have more responsibility. There are the partners in the company, the members of the board, the CEO, etc. This analogy may a bit weak because of my ignorance of the details of the structure of a finance company. But you get the idea, I'm sure.
In the yeshiva world, the set up is similar. (Let's leave out the chassidishe world for now because it does operate slightly differently, but not very differently because nowadays the differences between chassidish and litvish are only a little more than how you dent your hat and what time you pray. Ok, I do exaggerate.) Boys go into yeshiva to learn Torah - entry-level workers. They may have madrichim (student leaders) or older chavrusas (learning partners) for guidance, but they are all entry-level. Some of them become rebbeim, who teach and guide the entry-level learners. Then there are the maggidei shiur, who teach bigger and more 'important' lessons. There are the higher-level rebbeim and the less-high-level rebbeim (in a yeshiva, everyone knows which is which but it's not always through official position appointments, it is just 'known'). There is the mashgiach, and there is the Rosh Yeshiva at the top.
Outside the yeshiva, there is a bit of a parallel track in that there are chinuch rabbonim, who teach in schools (let's stick to the charedi world for ease of analogising). As well as the teaching staff, there are mashgichim (guidance counselors), and menahelim (principals), and in high schools there may be a menahel and a rosh yeshiva, one with administrative responsibility and one with responsibility over the Torah aspect. There are also pulpit rabbis, some with large important pulpits in big population centres, and some with small ones in small communities. There are dayanim (rabbinical judges), who sit on a beis din and issue gettim (bills of divorce), and supervise kashrus (depending on the size of the area, there may be other rabbonim who are in charge of that), and give halachic rulings.
So. There are men who are excellent at learning gemara. They are skilled at it, they are dedicated, their knowledge and understanding increases exponentially every day. They become a rebbe of a small shiur (lesson) of boys. Their lesson grows; they become the maggid shiur of a big group of boys, then they teach the most important lesson. Then they might be considered so knowledgeable that they are asked to become the Rosh Yeshiva. But what if they don't really have the skills to teach gemara, only to learn it? Then they might become a rebbe of a small shiur, but their small shiur may never progress to become a bigger shiur. Or they might become a big important maggid shiur with wonderful empathy for their students, but not have the ability to be able to juggle all the details that make up a yeshiva - when to insist on rigorous learning and when to schedule a hike, when to change learning matter, which commentators will be learned and how many differing opinions will be accepted in their yeshiva, what the tone and style of the yeshiva will be that will make it different from the yeshiva next door or down the block. It is entirely possible, I think, that a Rosh Yeshiva might be less of a talmid chacham than his top maggid shiur is. He just has those extra skills and mode of thought that enables him to run a large company (ie, a yeshiva). But the rosh yeshiva might not be able to be a mashgiach, who usually has responsibility for overseeing the mental health of the students, keeping an eye on who is learning well, who is depressed, who is stagnating because they have outgrown their shiur without realising it, etc, and needs an unusually large amount of empathy, sensitivity, and responsibility.
Outside of the yeshiva, there are rabbonim and dayanim who are excellent at kashrus questions. there are rabbonim who excel at niddah questions, or even in the very complicated halachic fields of issur v'heter, or eruvin, or at unraveling tangled business questions of compensation and ownership. But they do not have the sensitivity to deal with a question that involves people. Emotional implications are lost on them and they cannot deal with the topic competently. Not because they lack knowledge or closeness to God, but because they do not have that skillset. Some rabbonim are excellent orators and inspirers, but when people turn to them for halachic guidance (beyond the basics), they are misled, because these rabbonim do not have the halachic knowledge and inspired understanding to rule in the correct way.
All of these individuals are important, they are all serving God, and we need them. We need maggidei shiur, we need good orators, we need experts in kashrut, eruvin, nezikin and issur v'heter, we need rebbeim teaching small lessons and big ones, and we need roshei yeshiva and mashgichim. We need dayanim. The tragedy arises when we turn a rosh yeshiva into a posek, or make an inspirational orator answer complex halachic questions, or seek emotional guidance from the kashrut expert. When this happens, we end up with a lot of broken, betrayed and bemused Jews. As I think we are seeing now.
Some people can - and do - excel in more than one of these categories that I've sketched out. Very few individuals excel at all of them. To be honest, possibly no one ever has (even Moses was not a good orator). Rav Moshe Feinstein was a posek (halachic decisor) par excellence, but I have heard that his shiurim were never well attended. The Lubavitcher rebbe gave halachic rulings rarely, but the emotional guidance and understanding of people that he displayed and exercised was legendary. Rav Soloveitchik did not give much emotional guidance (from what I have heard), but he was a superlative rosh yeshiva and teacher.
But there are some rabbonim who can understand Torah authentically, and divine the mood and understanding of a whole widespread community, and who can unite one with the other without either compromising Torah or breaking the community. Rav Moshe, Rav Soloveitchik and the Lubavitcher Rebbe could all do this, within their different spheres. We call those people, a leader.
Today, we have a lot of people in all the roles I mentioned above. But we have very, very few (if any) leaders.
In the business world, let's say in a large finance company, there are different levels of hierarchy. There are the entry-level workers who sell stocks and shares or watch the stock market or whatever they do (I really haven't a clue).There are their supervisors, who have more responsibility. There are the partners in the company, the members of the board, the CEO, etc. This analogy may a bit weak because of my ignorance of the details of the structure of a finance company. But you get the idea, I'm sure.
In the yeshiva world, the set up is similar. (Let's leave out the chassidishe world for now because it does operate slightly differently, but not very differently because nowadays the differences between chassidish and litvish are only a little more than how you dent your hat and what time you pray. Ok, I do exaggerate.) Boys go into yeshiva to learn Torah - entry-level workers. They may have madrichim (student leaders) or older chavrusas (learning partners) for guidance, but they are all entry-level. Some of them become rebbeim, who teach and guide the entry-level learners. Then there are the maggidei shiur, who teach bigger and more 'important' lessons. There are the higher-level rebbeim and the less-high-level rebbeim (in a yeshiva, everyone knows which is which but it's not always through official position appointments, it is just 'known'). There is the mashgiach, and there is the Rosh Yeshiva at the top.
Outside the yeshiva, there is a bit of a parallel track in that there are chinuch rabbonim, who teach in schools (let's stick to the charedi world for ease of analogising). As well as the teaching staff, there are mashgichim (guidance counselors), and menahelim (principals), and in high schools there may be a menahel and a rosh yeshiva, one with administrative responsibility and one with responsibility over the Torah aspect. There are also pulpit rabbis, some with large important pulpits in big population centres, and some with small ones in small communities. There are dayanim (rabbinical judges), who sit on a beis din and issue gettim (bills of divorce), and supervise kashrus (depending on the size of the area, there may be other rabbonim who are in charge of that), and give halachic rulings.
So. There are men who are excellent at learning gemara. They are skilled at it, they are dedicated, their knowledge and understanding increases exponentially every day. They become a rebbe of a small shiur (lesson) of boys. Their lesson grows; they become the maggid shiur of a big group of boys, then they teach the most important lesson. Then they might be considered so knowledgeable that they are asked to become the Rosh Yeshiva. But what if they don't really have the skills to teach gemara, only to learn it? Then they might become a rebbe of a small shiur, but their small shiur may never progress to become a bigger shiur. Or they might become a big important maggid shiur with wonderful empathy for their students, but not have the ability to be able to juggle all the details that make up a yeshiva - when to insist on rigorous learning and when to schedule a hike, when to change learning matter, which commentators will be learned and how many differing opinions will be accepted in their yeshiva, what the tone and style of the yeshiva will be that will make it different from the yeshiva next door or down the block. It is entirely possible, I think, that a Rosh Yeshiva might be less of a talmid chacham than his top maggid shiur is. He just has those extra skills and mode of thought that enables him to run a large company (ie, a yeshiva). But the rosh yeshiva might not be able to be a mashgiach, who usually has responsibility for overseeing the mental health of the students, keeping an eye on who is learning well, who is depressed, who is stagnating because they have outgrown their shiur without realising it, etc, and needs an unusually large amount of empathy, sensitivity, and responsibility.
Outside of the yeshiva, there are rabbonim and dayanim who are excellent at kashrus questions. there are rabbonim who excel at niddah questions, or even in the very complicated halachic fields of issur v'heter, or eruvin, or at unraveling tangled business questions of compensation and ownership. But they do not have the sensitivity to deal with a question that involves people. Emotional implications are lost on them and they cannot deal with the topic competently. Not because they lack knowledge or closeness to God, but because they do not have that skillset. Some rabbonim are excellent orators and inspirers, but when people turn to them for halachic guidance (beyond the basics), they are misled, because these rabbonim do not have the halachic knowledge and inspired understanding to rule in the correct way.
All of these individuals are important, they are all serving God, and we need them. We need maggidei shiur, we need good orators, we need experts in kashrut, eruvin, nezikin and issur v'heter, we need rebbeim teaching small lessons and big ones, and we need roshei yeshiva and mashgichim. We need dayanim. The tragedy arises when we turn a rosh yeshiva into a posek, or make an inspirational orator answer complex halachic questions, or seek emotional guidance from the kashrut expert. When this happens, we end up with a lot of broken, betrayed and bemused Jews. As I think we are seeing now.
Some people can - and do - excel in more than one of these categories that I've sketched out. Very few individuals excel at all of them. To be honest, possibly no one ever has (even Moses was not a good orator). Rav Moshe Feinstein was a posek (halachic decisor) par excellence, but I have heard that his shiurim were never well attended. The Lubavitcher rebbe gave halachic rulings rarely, but the emotional guidance and understanding of people that he displayed and exercised was legendary. Rav Soloveitchik did not give much emotional guidance (from what I have heard), but he was a superlative rosh yeshiva and teacher.
But there are some rabbonim who can understand Torah authentically, and divine the mood and understanding of a whole widespread community, and who can unite one with the other without either compromising Torah or breaking the community. Rav Moshe, Rav Soloveitchik and the Lubavitcher Rebbe could all do this, within their different spheres. We call those people, a leader.
Today, we have a lot of people in all the roles I mentioned above. But we have very, very few (if any) leaders.
Thursday, 25 April 2013
The Belittling Embarrassment Of Rabbi Broyde
So far, the wincingly-embarrassing revelations that Rabbi Dr. Michael Broyde had used more than one pseudonym to express himself anonymously in the public arena have besmirched his personal reputation, but no doubt had been publicly cast over the rigour and reliability of his academic work and piskei halacha.
But it seems that there are holes in his academic and halachic probity as well. My old friend Steven I Weiss has written an article for the Jewish Channel, describing a detailed, controversial article written by Rabbi Broyde for Tradition about women's hair coverings, the scholarship of which was buttressed by a letter from an elderly Talmudic scholar named David Keter. Weiss's article casts serious doubts on the existence of such a person. Read Weiss' full article here. Rabbi Broyde's online article for hirhurim, which substantiated his halachic claims by relying on David Keter's support can be read here. Nothing is yet proven, but if this is indeed true then his lack of yashrus moves from the childishly embarrassing to the shamefully dishonest.
I have another example of Rabbi Broyde's apparent fabrication of halachic proof. A couple of years ago, Rabbi Broyde was in London, UK, and gave a shiur to a coneference of Jewish doctors. In the course of his lecture, he referred to a letter from the Lubavitcher rebbe which permitted prospective medical students to take entrance exams on Shabbat. My husband thought that this was an unusual position for the Lubavitcher Rebbe to take, and contacted his own Rav, the Lubavitcher Chassid and talmid chacham Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, shlita. Rabbi Rapoport was also puzzled by this; he said that he had never heard of such a psak from the Rebbe, and that he does not think that the Lubavitcher Rebbe would have said such a thing, for a number reasons. My husband then emailed Rabbi Broyde, asking where he could find the source the Rabbi Broyde had refered to. Rabbi Broyde's response was "I do not think it has been published.". My husband felt that this was an unsatisfactory answer, and emailed him again to ask "If not, where can I find reference to it to look into it further?". He received no further reply.
At the time, my husband thought that this seemed strange. If a letter has not been published, then how can Rabbi Broyde know of it to refer to it? And the psak in this letter contradicts the huge amount that is documented already about the Lubavitcher Rebbe's stance in this regard. In light of the discovery that Rabbi Broyde has fabricated other material, which was not halachically sensitive, his reliability in presenting 'new' halachic proofs is also affected.
I had initially felt pure sympathy and embarrassment for Rabbi Broyde, along with the sense that it is such a stupid thing to do. How embarrassing to be derided in this way! How shameful for a man of letters and scholarship to engage in such petty, childish tricks! But my sympathy is slowly evaporating. To engage in childish games of 'bigging up' one's importance and blowing one's own trumpet anonymously is one - ridiculous, embarrassing - thing. But to present inauthentic academic scholarship is another. And, to my mind, to create proofs to substantiate a halachic argument which cannot stand on it own legs is a far more serious third issue.
Chazal tell us that in the next World, man is presented with a retrospective of his life. The tzadikim, who triumphed over sin, will look back at the desire for sin which they overcame and say 'It was like a huge chasm', while the wicked who gave in to the desire to sin will say 'it was like a small hole'. This seems to be the wrong way around; surely he who gave into sin should think that the desire to sin was as large as a chasm, while he who triumphed over the desire should view his desire as something small and easily overwhelmed. Yet the reverse is true. When the wicked look back at the sin they gave into, they will see how petty and meaningless that sin was. They will wish that they had overcome their desire to do something which was nothing but a waste. The righteous, when they look back at their lives, will recognise that the fact that they triumphed over their base desires was an achievement of pure will, and that their victory is indeed great.
It seems to me that Rabbi Broyde's actions are similar. Maybe when he did it, it seemed like something important; something that no one would ever know about; something that didn;t really matter, because he was right anyway. And now that it is all being dragged into the bright light of public opinion, perhaps he is realising how small his sin was.
I remember reading somewhere that the sins we really regret are not the huge sins of ideology or conscience, but the petty sins of desire and smallness. It is sad that someone who is a great thinker and a great teacher has dragged himself down in this way.
But it seems that there are holes in his academic and halachic probity as well. My old friend Steven I Weiss has written an article for the Jewish Channel, describing a detailed, controversial article written by Rabbi Broyde for Tradition about women's hair coverings, the scholarship of which was buttressed by a letter from an elderly Talmudic scholar named David Keter. Weiss's article casts serious doubts on the existence of such a person. Read Weiss' full article here. Rabbi Broyde's online article for hirhurim, which substantiated his halachic claims by relying on David Keter's support can be read here. Nothing is yet proven, but if this is indeed true then his lack of yashrus moves from the childishly embarrassing to the shamefully dishonest.
I have another example of Rabbi Broyde's apparent fabrication of halachic proof. A couple of years ago, Rabbi Broyde was in London, UK, and gave a shiur to a coneference of Jewish doctors. In the course of his lecture, he referred to a letter from the Lubavitcher rebbe which permitted prospective medical students to take entrance exams on Shabbat. My husband thought that this was an unusual position for the Lubavitcher Rebbe to take, and contacted his own Rav, the Lubavitcher Chassid and talmid chacham Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, shlita. Rabbi Rapoport was also puzzled by this; he said that he had never heard of such a psak from the Rebbe, and that he does not think that the Lubavitcher Rebbe would have said such a thing, for a number reasons. My husband then emailed Rabbi Broyde, asking where he could find the source the Rabbi Broyde had refered to. Rabbi Broyde's response was "I do not think it has been published.". My husband felt that this was an unsatisfactory answer, and emailed him again to ask "If not, where can I find reference to it to look into it further?". He received no further reply.
At the time, my husband thought that this seemed strange. If a letter has not been published, then how can Rabbi Broyde know of it to refer to it? And the psak in this letter contradicts the huge amount that is documented already about the Lubavitcher Rebbe's stance in this regard. In light of the discovery that Rabbi Broyde has fabricated other material, which was not halachically sensitive, his reliability in presenting 'new' halachic proofs is also affected.
I had initially felt pure sympathy and embarrassment for Rabbi Broyde, along with the sense that it is such a stupid thing to do. How embarrassing to be derided in this way! How shameful for a man of letters and scholarship to engage in such petty, childish tricks! But my sympathy is slowly evaporating. To engage in childish games of 'bigging up' one's importance and blowing one's own trumpet anonymously is one - ridiculous, embarrassing - thing. But to present inauthentic academic scholarship is another. And, to my mind, to create proofs to substantiate a halachic argument which cannot stand on it own legs is a far more serious third issue.
Chazal tell us that in the next World, man is presented with a retrospective of his life. The tzadikim, who triumphed over sin, will look back at the desire for sin which they overcame and say 'It was like a huge chasm', while the wicked who gave in to the desire to sin will say 'it was like a small hole'. This seems to be the wrong way around; surely he who gave into sin should think that the desire to sin was as large as a chasm, while he who triumphed over the desire should view his desire as something small and easily overwhelmed. Yet the reverse is true. When the wicked look back at the sin they gave into, they will see how petty and meaningless that sin was. They will wish that they had overcome their desire to do something which was nothing but a waste. The righteous, when they look back at their lives, will recognise that the fact that they triumphed over their base desires was an achievement of pure will, and that their victory is indeed great.
It seems to me that Rabbi Broyde's actions are similar. Maybe when he did it, it seemed like something important; something that no one would ever know about; something that didn;t really matter, because he was right anyway. And now that it is all being dragged into the bright light of public opinion, perhaps he is realising how small his sin was.
I remember reading somewhere that the sins we really regret are not the huge sins of ideology or conscience, but the petty sins of desire and smallness. It is sad that someone who is a great thinker and a great teacher has dragged himself down in this way.
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Different Approaches To Learning Tanach
Yesterday, I went to a shiur by R' Menachem Leibtag. I confess I got there late and so I missed the beginning of this particular tangent. He was teaching about the morning blessing of 'laasok b'divrei Torah - to be immersed in the words of Torah'. He was discussing the different yeshiva approaches to learning Tanach - either that of emunas chachamim (trust - one could say blind trust - in the explanations of earlier teachers), where you learn Tanach through the prism of our Sages, including the disinclination to teach anything negative about any biblical character (I think that there are probably ranges within this approach), or an alternative approach where you first read and think about a text yourself, and then you turn to the Sages to try to understand it.
R' Menachem is not a fire and brimstone person. He pointed out that both approaches have their dangers. The 'yeshivish' approach is far more successful at inculcating fear of heaven, good character traits, and keeping kids 'on the derech'. But it comes at a price. (Those are his words.)
But without original study of original texts, one won't understand rabbinical statements (nor rabbinical writings such as the siddur, as R' Menachem is currently teaching us). So there are dangers and drawbacks to both sides.
And I am curious - what do you think? Do you agree that the 'emunas chachamim' approach is more successful? Do you think that the price R' Menachem refers to is worth paying? Or do you think that the 'original study' approach is better?
To speak personally, i was taught in a manner which was more in line with the 'emunas chachamim' approach. I grew up learning the commentary of Rashi along with Torah, and it truly affected how I read Torah until today. I would see the words of the verses, but I would be reading Rashi and Midrash under and through and between the lines. For many years, this went on without my even realising it. I remember many times when my husband would raise a question on the weekly Torah portion, and my response would be 'I don;t see any question, it's obvious, Rashi says...' (if someone who doesn't know me is reading this, my husband is ba'al teshuvah and did not grow up learning the commentaries alongside the verses). It would be hard for me to see the contradiction, because the answer that Rashi gave was so ingrained in my consciousness.
This means that I had to learn how to read the Tanach simply, how to read what is there and see what could be there, should be there, and shouldn't be there. While i have no real complaints about the my education (well, I do in parts), since it got me to where I am today, it genuinely took years for me to be able to read some parts of Torah at face value - without the overlay of classical commentary and Midrash. Today, that overlay is still there for me, but i am able to recognise it for what it is and push past it. Nowadays, it means that i have a warehouse stocked with midrashic and rabbinic material which i am able to draw on, when I have spotted those puzzles and patterns that lurk amongst the verses.
To me, the effect of seeing Rashi's commentary and midrash along with the words of Tanach is like looking through smeared glasses. You can see better than without them on - but you still can't see clearly.
R' Menachem is not a fire and brimstone person. He pointed out that both approaches have their dangers. The 'yeshivish' approach is far more successful at inculcating fear of heaven, good character traits, and keeping kids 'on the derech'. But it comes at a price. (Those are his words.)
But without original study of original texts, one won't understand rabbinical statements (nor rabbinical writings such as the siddur, as R' Menachem is currently teaching us). So there are dangers and drawbacks to both sides.
And I am curious - what do you think? Do you agree that the 'emunas chachamim' approach is more successful? Do you think that the price R' Menachem refers to is worth paying? Or do you think that the 'original study' approach is better?
To speak personally, i was taught in a manner which was more in line with the 'emunas chachamim' approach. I grew up learning the commentary of Rashi along with Torah, and it truly affected how I read Torah until today. I would see the words of the verses, but I would be reading Rashi and Midrash under and through and between the lines. For many years, this went on without my even realising it. I remember many times when my husband would raise a question on the weekly Torah portion, and my response would be 'I don;t see any question, it's obvious, Rashi says...' (if someone who doesn't know me is reading this, my husband is ba'al teshuvah and did not grow up learning the commentaries alongside the verses). It would be hard for me to see the contradiction, because the answer that Rashi gave was so ingrained in my consciousness.
This means that I had to learn how to read the Tanach simply, how to read what is there and see what could be there, should be there, and shouldn't be there. While i have no real complaints about the my education (well, I do in parts), since it got me to where I am today, it genuinely took years for me to be able to read some parts of Torah at face value - without the overlay of classical commentary and Midrash. Today, that overlay is still there for me, but i am able to recognise it for what it is and push past it. Nowadays, it means that i have a warehouse stocked with midrashic and rabbinic material which i am able to draw on, when I have spotted those puzzles and patterns that lurk amongst the verses.
To me, the effect of seeing Rashi's commentary and midrash along with the words of Tanach is like looking through smeared glasses. You can see better than without them on - but you still can't see clearly.
Women Of The Wall
I'm not sure why I think this is a good idea, but i'm going to share my thoughts on the current furore over the Women of the Wall.
I think that what they do is either unnecessary or unexceptional. To pray with tallis and tefillin is unnecessary. The halachic truth (as I have heard it taught): it is not forbidden for women to wear either item. It is not required, and traditionally women never had worn them. Time has hallowed them to be men-only items, but that doesn't mean that any woman who does wear them is breaking any laws. But it is not necessary.
I don't agree with the desire to wear a tallis and tefillin. I don't think it adds anything. But nor am I going to get het up about someone else choosing to wear them. I will think her misguided, but not a sinner. She is someone who wishes to come close to God, who thinks that this will increase her sense of spirituality and inspiration, and although in my opinion she is going about it in an erroneous way, she is not breaking any laws and is also not disturbing my ability to connect with God.
I think that all these claims about the WoW causing disturbances and interfering with the ability of others to pray at the kotel are all spurious. Granted many (most?) people there will not agree with it nor like it. Granted, it may make them feel uncomfortable. But you know what? Life is like that.
Life is full of things that make us feel uncomfortable. even when we pray. And as anyone who has ever prayed at the kotel knows, it is an experience which is fraught with distractions and disturbances. Sephardi women hanging over the mechitzah (separation) at barmitzvahs, ululating and throwing sweets. Women asking for charity money. Christian tourists praying to Jesus the Messiah (I find that particularly disturbing). Women of all types pushing past you to touch the stones. Hot sun sizzling on your back. Women walking backwards to leave the prayer plaza and bumping into you or treading on your toes. Mobile phones going off. People sobbing loudly. If you want a peaceful, undisturbed prayer experience, the kotel is not the place to go.
I think that the complaints that the WoW prayed too loudly or sang too loudly are also spurious. I accept that they might make it hard for men to pray (but see my point above). The men do have other places to move to to pray. They also could pray louder themselves, or join in, thus preventing themselves from hearing the women's voices. They could just wait a bit till they are finished. or they could be more consistent and request that barmitzvah groups at which the women sing (loudly) be evicted as well.
What is really going on is a part of the bigger debate about who defines Judaism in Israel, and who the kotel belongs to, anyway. A synagogue has every right to tell its worshipers that it has certain rules, which preclude praying in any particular way, and so the worshipers concerned who want to continue in a way which is contrary to the rules will have to go elsewhere. If the kotel is a private synagogue, this is totally legitimate.
But. But the kotel is not a private synagogue. It is a public space. One of the most beautiful things about the kotel is that everyone can attend, everyone can connect with God in their way. So if some people are allowed to evict other people because they do not agree with the way they are doing what they are doing, that is contrary to the whole beautiful essence of the kotel. Furthermore, it is not the job of any individual to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner over the way in which a person chooses to connect with God.
Personally, although I see the advantages of this egalitarian section proposed by Natan Sharansky, I would be sorry to see it come into existence. Because right now, there is a section for men and a section for women. This separation enables all Jews to pray at the kotel plaza, at the same place under the same sky and same God, without divisions between one pray-er and the next. Once there would be an egalitarian section, then it would be 'us and them'. 'We' would look down on 'them', and 'they' would look down on 'us'. It would be a shame. I would rather keep us all together, with all our beautiful flaws and noise and distractions.
I think that what they do is either unnecessary or unexceptional. To pray with tallis and tefillin is unnecessary. The halachic truth (as I have heard it taught): it is not forbidden for women to wear either item. It is not required, and traditionally women never had worn them. Time has hallowed them to be men-only items, but that doesn't mean that any woman who does wear them is breaking any laws. But it is not necessary.
I don't agree with the desire to wear a tallis and tefillin. I don't think it adds anything. But nor am I going to get het up about someone else choosing to wear them. I will think her misguided, but not a sinner. She is someone who wishes to come close to God, who thinks that this will increase her sense of spirituality and inspiration, and although in my opinion she is going about it in an erroneous way, she is not breaking any laws and is also not disturbing my ability to connect with God.
I think that all these claims about the WoW causing disturbances and interfering with the ability of others to pray at the kotel are all spurious. Granted many (most?) people there will not agree with it nor like it. Granted, it may make them feel uncomfortable. But you know what? Life is like that.
Life is full of things that make us feel uncomfortable. even when we pray. And as anyone who has ever prayed at the kotel knows, it is an experience which is fraught with distractions and disturbances. Sephardi women hanging over the mechitzah (separation) at barmitzvahs, ululating and throwing sweets. Women asking for charity money. Christian tourists praying to Jesus the Messiah (I find that particularly disturbing). Women of all types pushing past you to touch the stones. Hot sun sizzling on your back. Women walking backwards to leave the prayer plaza and bumping into you or treading on your toes. Mobile phones going off. People sobbing loudly. If you want a peaceful, undisturbed prayer experience, the kotel is not the place to go.
I think that the complaints that the WoW prayed too loudly or sang too loudly are also spurious. I accept that they might make it hard for men to pray (but see my point above). The men do have other places to move to to pray. They also could pray louder themselves, or join in, thus preventing themselves from hearing the women's voices. They could just wait a bit till they are finished. or they could be more consistent and request that barmitzvah groups at which the women sing (loudly) be evicted as well.
What is really going on is a part of the bigger debate about who defines Judaism in Israel, and who the kotel belongs to, anyway. A synagogue has every right to tell its worshipers that it has certain rules, which preclude praying in any particular way, and so the worshipers concerned who want to continue in a way which is contrary to the rules will have to go elsewhere. If the kotel is a private synagogue, this is totally legitimate.
But. But the kotel is not a private synagogue. It is a public space. One of the most beautiful things about the kotel is that everyone can attend, everyone can connect with God in their way. So if some people are allowed to evict other people because they do not agree with the way they are doing what they are doing, that is contrary to the whole beautiful essence of the kotel. Furthermore, it is not the job of any individual to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner over the way in which a person chooses to connect with God.
Personally, although I see the advantages of this egalitarian section proposed by Natan Sharansky, I would be sorry to see it come into existence. Because right now, there is a section for men and a section for women. This separation enables all Jews to pray at the kotel plaza, at the same place under the same sky and same God, without divisions between one pray-er and the next. Once there would be an egalitarian section, then it would be 'us and them'. 'We' would look down on 'them', and 'they' would look down on 'us'. It would be a shame. I would rather keep us all together, with all our beautiful flaws and noise and distractions.
Monday, 15 April 2013
Yom Ha'atzmaut and the Bull
Has anyone ever thought about the significance of yom ha'atzmaut falling in the month of Iyar?
I notice now that from the beginning of the month, it's all already yom ha'atzmaut, kind of like how all of the month of Kislev is now the month of Chanukah.
The month of Nissan is represented by the lamb - it stands for God's kindness to us, how He took us out of Egypt when we did not deserve it, gave us everything, and we followed Him like a lamb, with no defenses or merits of our own.
Iyar, though, is the month of the bull. It's the month when, like the bull, we rebel and exert our power in a rebellious way. It is also the month when God withdraws His support from us, so that we can learn to walk by ourselves, supporting our own weight, like a mother letting go of her baby so he can learn to walk alone. Like the bull, in this month we can discover our own strength so that we can become ready to meet God as (almost) equals who stand on our own feet, a meeting which takes place in the month of Sivan, represented by the twins - Gemini, two individuals together.
I can see where this timing could be taken to prove that the State of Israel/yom ha'atzmaut is a sign of our rebelliousness against God. And I can also see that it could be taken to mean that we were intended to discover the abilities and strengths which God gave us, to learn how to stand on our own feet before He meets us, like at Sinai, in a relationship which this time will never be broken.
I notice now that from the beginning of the month, it's all already yom ha'atzmaut, kind of like how all of the month of Kislev is now the month of Chanukah.
The month of Nissan is represented by the lamb - it stands for God's kindness to us, how He took us out of Egypt when we did not deserve it, gave us everything, and we followed Him like a lamb, with no defenses or merits of our own.
Iyar, though, is the month of the bull. It's the month when, like the bull, we rebel and exert our power in a rebellious way. It is also the month when God withdraws His support from us, so that we can learn to walk by ourselves, supporting our own weight, like a mother letting go of her baby so he can learn to walk alone. Like the bull, in this month we can discover our own strength so that we can become ready to meet God as (almost) equals who stand on our own feet, a meeting which takes place in the month of Sivan, represented by the twins - Gemini, two individuals together.
I can see where this timing could be taken to prove that the State of Israel/yom ha'atzmaut is a sign of our rebelliousness against God. And I can also see that it could be taken to mean that we were intended to discover the abilities and strengths which God gave us, to learn how to stand on our own feet before He meets us, like at Sinai, in a relationship which this time will never be broken.
Friday, 15 February 2013
Divine Denier
I finally and sadly ripped my last pair of Tesco tights today, so I went off to explore the (surprisingly rich) world of tights shopping in Ramat Beit Shemesh.
All the tights and other womens under-garments are in a separate room in Bazaar Strauss. I did see a man giving a furtive look around before entering there. Yes, I'm sure that he was only there filling an order from his wife.
It turns out there is a very wide range of tights, knee highs and thigh highs (no garters), and in all shades of brown, beige, black and oh yes vomit-coloured-bullet-proof. It felt like the place to go if you ever wished to give a visual presentation explaining the different charedi schools and allegiances in Chareidi Israel ("This over here is Beis Yaakov. 40 denier, navy. This one is Bnos something something, 70 denier and cream. etc"). I wonder if anyone has ever tried using that as an educational tool?
All the tights and other womens under-garments are in a separate room in Bazaar Strauss. I did see a man giving a furtive look around before entering there. Yes, I'm sure that he was only there filling an order from his wife.
It turns out there is a very wide range of tights, knee highs and thigh highs (no garters), and in all shades of brown, beige, black and oh yes vomit-coloured-bullet-proof. It felt like the place to go if you ever wished to give a visual presentation explaining the different charedi schools and allegiances in Chareidi Israel ("This over here is Beis Yaakov. 40 denier, navy. This one is Bnos something something, 70 denier and cream. etc"). I wonder if anyone has ever tried using that as an educational tool?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)